Why Reporting in SAFe Often Misses the Point—and How to Fix It
When working in SAFe, reporting is often structured around quantitative KPIs—metrics that are easy to track, such as:
The number of stories delivered.
The number of features completed.
The percentage of committed vs. completed work in a PI.
Story points delivered per sprint.
These are useful, but they don’t tell the full story. They focus on output, not outcomes, and can create a false sense of progress if they’re not balanced with other key indicators. In many cases, these numbers look great on a report but fail to answer the most important questions:
Was the work actually valuable?
Did it improve the product in a meaningful way?
What did it cost in terms of rework, defects, and delays?
The Problem With Traditional KPIs in SAFe
In many Agile Release Trains (ARTs), reporting is driven by what’s easy to measure rather than what’s actually important. Teams track completed work but rarely measure the quality of that work or how efficiently it was delivered. This leads to situations where teams appear to be performing well on paper, but in reality:
Features are shipped without considering their long-term maintainability or user impact.
Bug fixes and rework eat into future capacity, but they’re not always reflected in the KPIs.
Teams optimize for speed at the cost of quality, since velocity is often prioritized over sustainability.
If the goal is to deliver value—not just complete work—then reporting needs to evolve beyond just counting the number of completed tasks.
KPIs That Actually Matter: Quality and Flow Efficiency
Measure what matters
Instead of only measuring how much work gets done, teams should track how well the work is done and how efficiently it moves through the system.
Here are two KPIs that should be included in reporting:
1. Quality Metrics: Measuring More Than Just Output
The traditional SAFe metrics often ignore post-release defects, technical debt, and maintainability. But quality is just as important as quantity. Some key quality KPIs to track:
Defect density: How many defects per story/feature?
Escaped defects: How many bugs are found after release?
Code churn: How often is the same code reworked?
By tracking these, teams can ensure they’re not just delivering more, but delivering better.
2. Lead Time: Measuring How Efficiently Work Moves
Another overlooked metric is lead time—the time from when a story is picked up until it’s completed. Traditional reporting in SAFe often focuses on the number of completed stories without checking if the team is working efficiently. Long lead times can indicate:
Bottlenecks in the process.
Too much work-in-progress (WIP), leading to slow delivery.
Dependencies that slow down development.
If a team delivers 40 story points but those stories took twice as long as expected, that’s a problem. Tracking lead time helps identify inefficiencies and improve flow.
Can We Rely Only on Qualitative KPIs?
If traditional SAFe reporting is too focused on quantitative KPIs, wouldn’t it make sense to shift completely to qualitative measures instead? Can we do without tracking things like velocity, number of stories delivered, or capacity?
The short answer: No. We need both quantitative and qualitative KPIs.
Why Both Are Necessary
Quantitative KPIs provide structure and comparability. Numbers give teams a way to measure progress over time, identify trends, and compare performance across sprints or PIs. Without these, it’s hard to know if the team is improving or stagnating.
Qualitative KPIs capture context and impact. Metrics like "customer satisfaction," "perceived value of features," or "team confidence" add depth to the raw numbers. A team might deliver 100 story points, but if the end users aren’t satisfied, the work wasn’t truly valuable.
Where Quantitative KPIs Fall Short
Relying only on numbers can be misleading. A team might optimize for velocity but at the cost of quality, cutting corners to complete more stories. Story points, capacity, and feature count are just indicators, not proof of value.
Where Qualitative KPIs Fall Short
On the other hand, only using qualitative KPIs makes it difficult to track long-term progress. Subjective feedback can vary, and without data-driven metrics, teams may struggle to prove improvements over time.
The Right Balance
The best reporting combines both:
Quantitative metrics ensure delivery remains predictable and measurable.
Qualitative insights ensure that what’s being delivered is actually valuable and sustainable.
A strong SAFe reporting approach should answer both questions:
Are we delivering efficiently? → Measured by velocity, lead time, and capacity.
Are we delivering the right things, at the right quality? → Measured by customer feedback, defect rates, and team confidence.
By balancing these two types of KPIs, teams ensure they’re not just moving fast, but also moving in the right direction.
Making Reporting More Meaningful
To fix reporting in SAFe, we need to stop measuring just the easy numbers and start focusing on value, quality, and efficiency. A report that only tracks velocity and feature completion doesn’t tell you if the train is delivering real impact. By incorporating quality metrics and lead time, reporting becomes a tool for continuous improvement rather than just a status update.
It’s time to shift the focus from “Did we complete what we said we would?” to “Did we deliver value in a sustainable way?” That’s the KPI that really matters.
You might also like these articles:
